Written:Written between July 22 and 26 (August 4 and 8), 1917Published:Published inRabochy i SoldatNos 3 and 4, July 26 and 27, 1917.

      Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages211-222.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2002You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

OnJuly 22 the newspapers printed a report “from the     Public Prosecutor of the Petrograd City Court” about the inquiry into     the events of July 3-5, and about the prosecution of a group of Bolsheviks,     including myself, who are charged with treason and the organisation of an     armed uprising.

Thegovernment bad to publish the report because this dirty business had     already created too much of a scandal, having clearly been rigged, as every     intelligent person realises, with the aid of the slanderer Alexinsky to     meet a long-standing wish and demand of the counter-revolutionary Cadet     Party.

Butby publishing the report, the government of Tsereteli and Co. will     disgrace itself even more, for now the crudeness of the fabrication just     hits one in the eye.

Ileft Petrograd on Thursday, June 29, on account of illness and did not     return until Tuesday morning, July 4. But of course I assume full and     unqualified responsibility for every single move or measure of our Party     Central Committee, as well as of our Party as a whole. I call attention to     my absence to account for my ignorance of certain details and for my     allusion mainly to documents that have appeared in the press.

Obviously,it is documents of this nature, particularly if published in     the anti-Bolshevik press, that the Public Prosecutor should have carefully     collected, set in order and examined before anything else. But the     “republican” Prosecutor, who is carrying out the policies of     the“socialist” Minister Tsereteli, failed to perform his     principal duty!

Shortlyafter July 4, the ministerial newspaperDyelo Narodaadmitted that it was a fact that on July 2 the Bolsheviks had taken action     in the Grenadier Regiment by campaigningagainsta     demonstration.

Hadthe Prosecutor a right to keep quiet about this document? Had he any     grounds for discounting the testimony of such a witness?

Asit so happens, this testimony establishes the highly important fact     that the movement developed spontaneously and that the Bolsheviks tried to     put off rather than hasten the demonstration.

Furthermore,the same paper printed a still more important document,     namely, the text of an appeal signed by our Party Central Committee and     written on the night of July 3–4. The appeal was written and sent to printalterthe movement, despite our efforts to check or rather control     it, had “spilled over”, after the demonstration bad become a     fact.

Theutter baseness and unscrupulousness of the Tseretelian Prosecutor,     and his boundless treachery, show in hisevasionof the question     of exactly when, on what day and hour, whether before the Bolshevik appeal     or after it, the demonstrationbegan.

Asa matter of fact, the appeal stressed the need to give the movement apeaceableandorganisedcharacter!

Canyou imagine a charge more laughable than that of “organising     an armed uprising”, made against an organisation which on the night     of July 3–4, i.e., the night before the fateful day, issued an appeal for a     “peaceful and organised demonstration”? Or take another     question: what difference is there between the Prosecutor of Dreyfus or     Beilis and the “republican” Prosecutor of the     “socialist” Minister Tsereteli, a Prosecutor who keeps     completely quiet about the appeal?

Further,the Prosecutor does not say that on the night of July 3–4 our     Party Central Committee wrote an appeal to stop the demonstration and     printed it inPravda, whose offices were wrecked by     counter-revolutionary troops that very night.

Further,the Prosecutor does not say that on July 4 Trotsky and     Zinoviev, inseveralspeeches delivered before the workers and     soldiers marching towards the Taurida Palace, called on them todisperseonce they had made known their will.

Thosespeeches were heard by hundreds and thousands of people. Then, let     every fair-minded citizen who does not want his country to be disgraced by     another rigged “Beilis case” see to it that irrespective of     party affiliation, those who heard the speeches make written declarations     to the Prosecutor (keeping copies for themselves), stating whether     Trotsky’s and Zinoviev’s speeches contained an appeal to disperse. A decent     Prosecutor would himself have made such an appeal to the population. But     how on earth can there be decent Prosecutors in the Cabinet of Kerensky,     Yefremov, Tsereteli and Co.? And isn’t it high time Russian citizens     themselves took care to make “Beilis cases” impossible in their     country?

Bythe way, owing to illness, I personally made only one speech on July
4, from the balcony of Kshesinskaya’s Palace. The Prosecutor mentions it,
and tries to set out what I said, but far from naming any witnesses, he is
again reticent about eyewitness reports given in the press. I have by no
means been able to secure a complete set of the papers, but still I have
seen two testimonies:
(1) in the BolshevikProletarskoye Dyelo(Kronstadt) and
(2) in the Menshevik ministerialRabochaya Gazeta.Why not verify the contents of my speech by these documents and by a public     appeal?

Thespeech contained the following points:
(1) an apology for confining
myself to just a few words on account of illness;
(2) greetings to the
revolutionary people of Kronstadt on behalf of the Petrograd workers;
(3)
an expression of confidence that our slogan “All Power to the
Soviets” must and will win despite all the zigzags of history;
(4) an     appeal for “firmness, steadfastness and vigilance”.

Ibring out these particulars in order not to pass by the scant but     truly factual evidence which the Prosecutor touched upon—barely     touched upon—in such a cursory, indifferent and careless fashion.

However,the important thing is not the particulars, of course, but the
overall picture, the overall significanceof July 4. The Prosecutor proved     completely incapable of so much as even thinking about this.

Onthis question, we first of all have the highly valuable testimony     given in the press by a rabid anti-Bolshevik, who turns upon us a veritable     spate of invective and spiteful phrases. I refer to the ministerialRabochaya Gazetacorrespondent. He contributed his personal     observations shortly after July 4. The facts fully established by him show     that his observations and experiences fall into two sharply differentiated     parts. He contrasts the second with the first, saying that things had taken     a “favourable turn” for him.

Thefirst part of the author’s experiences is the attempt he made to     defend the ministers amid a raging crowd. He was insulted, pummelled, and     eventually detained. He heard extremely violent outcries and slogans, of     which he recalls in particular “Death to Kerensky” (because he     ordered an offensive, “sent forty thousand men to death”,     etc.).

Thesecond part of the author’s experiences, the one that brought a     “favourable” turn for him, as he puts it, began when the raging     crowd led him “before the tribunal” at the Kshesinskaya Palace.     There he was released at once.

Thoseare the facts which prompted the author to turn a torrent of abuse     upon the Bolsheviks. Abuse coming from a political opponent is natural,     particularly if the opponent is a Menshevik who senses that the people,     crushed by capital and the imperialist war, are against instead of for him.     Yet abuse cannot alter the facts, which even as stated by a most rabid     anti-Bolshevik testify that the aroused crowd went as far as to shout     “Death to Kerensky”, that by and large the Bolshevik     organisation gave the movement the slogan “All Power to the     Soviets”, and that this organisation was the only one that carried     any moral weight with the people and urged them to forgo violence.

Thoseare the facts. Let the willing and unwilling lackeys of the     bourgeoisie shout and curse about the facts, accusing the Bolsheviks of     “conniving with the mob”, etc., etc. We of the party of the     revolutionary proletariat reply that our Party has always been and will     always be with the oppressedwhenever they voice their absolutely justified     and legitimate indignation at the high cost of living, at the inaction and     treachery of the “socialist” Ministers, at the imperialist war     and its prolongation. Our Party did its bounden duty by marching together     with the justly indignant people on July 4 and by trying to make their     movement, their demonstration, as peaceful and organised as possible. For     on July 4 a peaceful transfer of power to the Soviets, a peaceful     development of the Russian revolution, wasstillpossible.

Thecrass stupidity of the Prosecutor’s fairy-tale about the     “organisation of an armed uprising” can be seen from the     following: no one will deny that the vast majority of the armed soldiers     and sailors who crowded the Petrograd streets on July 4 were on our Party’s     side. Our Party had every opportunity to set about removing and arresting     hundreds of high officials, taking over dozens of public and government     buildings and institutions, and so on. We did nothing of the kind. Only     people so mixed up that they repeat all sorts of tall stories spread by the     counter-revolutionary Cadets do not see the laughable absurdity of the     assertion that on July 3 or 4 an “armed uprising” was     “organised”.

Thefirst question the investigation should have put, if it had at all     been worthy of that name, was “who started the shooting?” The     next question should have been, “How many killed and wounded were     there on each side? In what circumstances did each killing and wounding     take place?” Had the investigation been anything like a real     investigation (and not like a trouble-making article in the papers of the     Dans, the Alexinskys, etc.), it would have been the investigators’ duty to     hold an open, public cross-examination of the witnesses and then     immediately publish the record of the interrogation.

Thatis what courts of inquiry always did in Britain when Britain was a     free country. That, or roughly that, is what the Executive Committee of the     Soviet felt it had to do at first, when fear of the Cadets had not yet     completely numbed its conscience. We know the Executive Committee then     promised in the press to issue two bulletins daily on the work of its     investigating commission. We also knowthe Executive Committee (i.e., the     Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks) deceived the people bynotkeeping its promise. But the text of that promise has gone     down in history as an admission from our enemies, an admission of what any     fair investigator should have done.

Itis instructive, at any rate, to note that one of the firstbourgeois, rabidly anti-Bolshevik papers to carry a report about     the shooting on July 4 was the eveningBirzhevkaof the same date.     And it is this report that suggests that the shooting wasnotstarted by the demonstrators, and that the first shots were firedagainstthem!! Of course, the “republican” Prosecutor     of the “socialist” Cabinet preferred to say nothing about this     testimony fromBirzhevka!!And yet this testimony of the utterly     anti-BolshevikBirzhevkafully accords with the general picture of     what happened as our Party sees it. Had it been an armed uprising, then, of     course, the insurgents would not have fired on the counter-demonstrators     but would have surrounded certain barracks and certain buildings; they     would have wiped out certain army units, etc. On the other hand, if it was     a demonstration against the government, with a counter-demonstration by     government defenders, it was perfectly natural that the     counter-revolutionaries should be the first to shoot, partly because they     were enraged by the enormous number of demonstrators, and partly with     provocative in tent. And it was just as natural the demonstrators should     counter shots with shots.

Listsof the dead, though probably incomplete, were published,     nevertheless, in a few papers (I think inRechandDyelo     Naroda). The prime and immediate duty of the investigation was to     verify, complete, and officially publish these lists. To evade this meansconcealingproof that the counter-revolutionaries started the     shooting.

Indeed,even a cursory examination of the published lists shows that the     two main and prominent groups, the Cossacks and the sailors, had each about     the same number killed. Could this have been so if the ten thousand armed     sailors who arrived in Petrograd on July 4 to join the workers and     soldiers, particularly the machine-gunners who had many machine-guns, had     been intent on an armed up rising?

Obviously,the number of dead among the Cossacks and other opponents of     the insurrection would in that case have been ten times greater, for no one     will deny that the predominance of the Bolsheviks among the armed people in     the Petrograd streets on July 4 was enormous. There is a long list of     relevant testimonies in the press from our Party opponents, and any fair     investigating body would undoubtedly have collected and published all this     evidence.

Ifthe number of dead is approximately the same on both sides, this     proves that the shooting was started by the counter-revolutionaries and     that the demonstrators merely returned the fire. Otherwise there could not     have been an equal number of dead.

Finally,the following piece of press information is exceedingly     important: Cossacks are known to have been killed on July 4 during an open     skirmish between the demonstrators and counter-demonstrators. Such     skirmishes take place even in non-revolutionary times, if the population is     at all aroused; for instance, they are not infrequent in the Latin     countries, particularly in the South. Bolsheviks are also known to have     been killed after July 4, when there wasnoclash between excited     demonstrators and counter-demonstrators, and hence when the murder of an     unarmed by an armed person was really an act of butchery. Such was the     murder of the Bolshevik Voinov in Shpalernaya Street on July 6.

Whatkind of an investigating commission is it that does not fully     collect even the evidence which has appeared in the press concerning the     number of dead on both sides, and the time and circumstances of each     killing? This is just a mockery of an investigation.

Itis clearly futile to expect as much as an attempt at a historical     evaluation of July 4 from such an “investigating” commission.     Yet this evaluation is indispensable to anyone wanting to maintain an     intelligent attitude towards politics.

Whoeverattempts a historical estimate of July 3 and 4 cannot shut his     eyes to the exact identity of this movement and that of April 20 and     21.

Inboth cases there was a spontaneous outburst of popular     indignation.

Inboth cases armed people came on to the streets.

Inboth cases there was a skirmish between the demonstrators and     counter-demonstrators, resulting in a certain (approximately equal) number     of victims on both sides.

Inboth cases there was an extremely sharp outburst in the struggle     between the revolutionary masses and the counter-revolutionaries, the     bourgeoisie, while the neutral, intermediate elements which inclined     towards compromise were temporarily inactive.

Inboth cases the special kind of anti-government demonstration (its     special features have been listed above) was due to a deep and protracted     crisis of power.

Thedifference between the two movements is that the latter was much     more intense than the former and that the Socialist-Revolutionary and     Menshevik parties, neutral on April 20 and 21, have since got themselves     into a tangle by their dependence on the counter-revolutionary Cadets     (through the coalition Cabinet and the policy of taking offensive action),     and so, on July 3 and 4, found themselves on the side of the     counter-revolution.

Thecounter-revolutionary Cadet Party brazenly lied even after the     events of April 20 and 21, shouting, “The shooting on Nevsky was done     by Lenin’s men”, and, clown-like, they demanded an investigation. The     Cadets and their friends then constituted the majority in the government     and so the investigation was wholly in their hands. It was begun and     abandoned, and nothing was published.

Why?Evidently because the facts in no way confirmed what the Cadets     wanted. In other words, the investigation concerning April 20 and 21 was     “smothered” because the facts proved t.hat the firing had been     started by the counter revolutionaries, the Cadets and their friends. This     is clear.

Thesame thing apparently happened on July 3 and 4 and that explains the     crude and glaring falsification used by the Prosecutor, who affronts all     standards of reasonably conscientious investigation to please Tsereteli and     Co.

Themovement on July 3 and 4 was the last attempt by means of a     demonstration to induce the Soviets to take power. That was when the     Soviets, i.e., theSocialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks controlling     them, virtually handed over power to the counter-revolution by summoning     counter-revolutionary troops to Petrograd, disarming and disbanding     revolutionary regiments and the workers, approving and tolerating acts of     tyranny and violence against the Bolsheviks, the introduction of the death     penalty at the front, etc.

Military,and consequently political, power has now virtually passed     into the hands of the counter-revolution represented by the Cadets and     backed by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Now, a peaceful     development of the Russian revolution is no longer possible and the     historical alternative is either complete victory for the     counter-revolution, or a new revolution.

Thecharge of espionage and relations with Germany is purely a Beilis     case deserving only a brief comment. On this point, the     “investigation” merely repeats the slander of the notorious     slanderer Alexinsky, distorting the facts in a particularly crude way.

Itis not true that in 1914 Zinoviev and I were arrested in Austria.     Only I was arrested.

Itis not true that I was arrested as a Russian subject. I was arrested     on suspicion of spying, the local gendarme having mistaken the graphs of     agrarian statistics in my notebooks for “plans"! Obviously, that     Austrian gendarme was quite on a par with Alexinsky and theYedinstvogroup. But it appears that I have been persecuted for     internationalism more than anyone else, for I have been persecuted bybothbelligerent coalitions as a spy—by the gendarme in     Austria and by the Cadets, Alexinsky and Co. in Russia.

Itis not true that Hanecki played a part in my release from the     Austrian prison. Victor Adler helped put the Austrian authorities to shame.     Poles helped, being ashamed that such an infamous arrest of a Russian     revolutionary could take place on Polish soil.

Itis an infamous lie that I was in contact with Parvus, that I visited     military camps, etc. Nothing of the kind happened, or could have happened.     Upon the appearance of thevery first issues of Parvus’s journalThe
Bell[2], our newspaper,Sotsial-Demokrat,     described
Parvus as a renegade and a German
Plekhanov.[1]Parvus     is as much a social-chauvinist on the side of Germany as
Plekhanov is on     the side of Russia. Being revolutionary
internationalists, we had and could     have nothing in common with German,
Russian, or Ukrainian (Union for the     Liberation of the Ukraine)
social-chauvinists.

Steinbergis a member of an exile committee in Stockholm, where I first     met him. About April 20 or a little later, Steinberg came to Petrograd,     where I remember him soliciting a subsidy for the exile society. The     Prosecutor could have verified this quite easily if he had wanted to.

TheProsecutor’s argument is that Parvus is connected with Hanecki, and     that Hanecki is connected with Lenin! But this is just a big swindle, for     everyone knows that Hanecki had financial dealings with Parvus, but none     with me.

Hanecki,being a tradesman, worked for Parvus or did business with him.     But then a great many Russian exiles associated with the press have worked     in establishments and institutions belonging to Parvus.

TheProsecutor’s argument is that business correspondence may have     served as a screen for relations in the nature of espionage. One wonders     how many members of the Cadet, Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary     parties could be indicted for business correspondence according to this     wonderful formula!

Butsince the Prosecutor is in possession of several telegrams from     Hanecki to Sumenson (which have already been published) and since the     Prosecutor knows in which bank, when, and how much money Sumenson had (for     the Prosecutor has published a few figures of this nature), why shouldn’t     he invite two or three office or business employees to take part in the     investigation? It would surely take them no more than a couple of days to     make acompleteextract from all the business and bank records for     him.

Hardlyanything reveals the true nature of this “Beilis     case” as well
as the fragmentary figures cited by theProsecutor:     within six months Sumenson drew 750,000 rubles; she has 180,000 rubles left     on her account!! If you are going to publish figures, why not publish them     all? When exactly, from whom exactly did Sumenson receive money     “within six months”, and to whom did she pay it out? When     exactly, and exactly what consignments of goods were received?

Whatcould be easier than to collect these complete data? This could and     should have been done in a matter of two or three days! It would have     disclosed the whole round of business dealings between Hanecki and     Sumenson! It would have left no room for the obscure insinuations the     Prosecutor is making!

Howlow the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have fallen is     shown by Alexinsky’s foulest and most infamous slander, paraphrased to read     like a “state” document by the officials of the Cabinet of     Tsereteli and Co.!

Ofcourse, it would be extremely naïve to regard the     “judicial cases” instituted by the Cabinet of Tsereteli,     Kerensky and Co. against the Bolsheviks as actual judicial cases. That     would be an absolutely unpardonable constitutional illusion.

Havingentered into a coalition with the counter-revolutionary Cadets on     May 6 and having adopted the policy of an offensive, i.e., resumption and     prolongation of the imperialist war, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and     Mensheviks inevitably found themselves under the thumb of the Cadets.

Beingcaptives, they are forced to participate in the filthiest Cadet     deals, in the Cadets’ lowest and most slanderous intrigues.

The“case” of Chernov is rapidly beginning to enlighten even     the backward, that is, to corroborate our view. After Chernov,Rechis now denouncing Tsereteli as well, calling him a     “hypocrite” and a “Zimmerwaldist”.

Nowthe blind will see and the stones will speak.

Thecounter-revolutionaries are closing their ranks. The Cadets form
their basis. The General Staff, the military leaders and Kerensky are in
their hands and the BlackHundred press is at their service. These are the     allies of the bourgeois counter-revolution.

Foulslander against political opponents will help the workers to     realise all the sooner where the counter-revolution is, and tosweep it     awayin the name of freedom, peace, bread for the hungry and land for
    the peasants.

[1]SeeVol. 21 of present edition,At the Uttermost
    Limit—Ed.

[2]TheBell (Die Glocke)—a periodical published in Munich and then
in Berlin from 1915 to 1925 by the social-chauvinist Parvus (
Helfand), member of the German Social-Democratic Party and an
agent of German imperialism.